Gary c Tesser

Dear LoganLady. I recognize that you, as green, should stick to basics. So I'll say, I think JJ's request is overly specific, and "Guest Who's" is kinda uselessly concerned with minutiae that you should not concern yourself with. And I regret the appearance of disrespect, but I advise disregarding everything SaintCad said. Of course you should read RONR, but it's silly to expect that you really can, within six months or so, if you have any other life (which I certainly hope is so. I would be dismayed to learn that you don't). I will say that you should get a copy of it, posthaste, and read Chapter Twenty, Disciplinary Procedures, because it is what both your accusers, and their accused, are concerned with. So you really need to know what it says. And of course you must look at what your bylaws say about disciplinary procedures. Before that, though, pick up a copy of RONR-In Brief. And read it at once. If you go to a bookstore, read it before you leave the store (step away from the cashier so that all the other eager customers have room to stand there and buy their own copies) -- it won't take an hour, this first reading, unless you're a college graduate, in which case they'll lock you in overnight because you're spending more time looking for grammatical errors than trying to get something worthwhile done. If you order it online or something, read it before you come back from accepting the package at the door. -- WHILE you stand there at the door. DO NOT come inside and put it down, resolving to read it soon. That's the kiss-of-death for getting things done. (I confess that I'm getting more generally into ruminating about how not to not get things done.) That will help you and your president keep these buccaneers from commandeering your meetings. It happens that RONR-In Brief does not at all address disciplinary procedures at all, but that's secondary to the question of who runs the meeting: it is the assembly itself. DEMOCRACY IS SUPREME. The assembly is represented by its presiding officer, or chairman (or woman, or block of wood to sit on, which is certainly functional as a chair, but I concede it cannot conduct a meeting ... I'm meandering, I suspect ...), and its meeting is conducted -- presided by -- the presiding officer. NOT THE PIRATES. I will add that it's a relief that you dodged a bullet when the motion to remove those officers failed, because if it had prevailed, you would have to wrangle with the procedural question as to whether it had been done legitimately -- i.e., whether those two people were still in office or not. But for pity's sake, LoganLady, look: would you play poker without knowing what the rules are? Would you play baseball or soccer, or even watch it, without knowing what the rules are? Is the efficient and fair way that your meetings happen any less important?

Nominate someone. Maybe a non-member (especially maybe an accountant, who, then might want to be paid for his work, unlike maybe a member, who would typically volunteer his or her time), unless your rules (that would typically be your bylaws) require that the treasurer be a member. Or maybe, in that case, make your nominee a member first. Or the bills don't get paid and the building goes dark. Your call.

GPN, why do you think that Ginny Baxter's post is anything like a New Topic, rather than a post (bewildering, to me, like most of the discussion in this thread) that applies to the discussion in this thread?

Ow! Where do you get that these are the proceedings, before this document is approved? OK, then, look, I guess you're looking at the secretary's unofficial, unapproved, draft. (But PLEASE don't call this document "The Proceedings." It's just not.) (... But, look: this document is the secretary's draft -- which has no official standing until it is ("they are") approved. But OK, yeah, they are the default. If anyone proposes another draft of the minutes, it would be as an amendment of the secretary's draft. ) ("Guest minutes", are you the original poster, Guest STEVEN V. AGRAVIADOR ? Or is this a related question, but not specifically about Mr Avraviodor's organization, though there might be similarities?)

The post of Posted Thursday at 02:24 PM makes it clear that it is ambiguous as to what the team is authorized to do. -- That is, unless the bylaws do say something about it, which the original post suggests: ... So, Guest Duey, what do you see in the bylaws (explictly, verbatim, please, with my heart in my mouth) that says that the team cannot buy properties? By the same token, how was the team, put in place to acquire properties, put in place?

Oh for pity's sake , stop: you can thank everyone, but it's not nearly done.

I always pay attention. But lamentably I so rarely remember. And who could anticipate that you would be awake before your bedtime again?

I agree with this opinion, but, before asserting it, I would prefer to ask Guest Shawn Terris how he thinks they are, indeed, applicable. (O yes indeed I notice that the discussion is a week stale. Alas.)

Yes, because of the likelihood that it protects absentees, who would not have otherwise skipped their child's or parents' wedding to attend the meeting if they thought there might be a contested election.

Whoop! That's news. Is it stated, or inferable, from p. 124 - 125? Can they really put this on my RP test?

It might be a minor point, if what your concern is that what was done at the meeting seems to have been invalid (so do you care whether the meeting -- the structure -- is called valid or invalid, when we're saying that the content of the meeting -- what was done -- was intrinsically invalid? -- geeez, what a question!). (O darnit, I have entirely lost track. Are there any loose ends here?)

The used-dictionary salesman.

It's a joke, of little consequence. When comic books are published, usually monthly, each publication is referred to as an issue. On the other hand, when Robert's Rules is Newly Revised every ten years or so, as it more-or-less has been since 1970, it's a new edition.

Why is this not the beginning and the end of the matter? Where do these tenured members and past officers get these ideas?

Yeesh. That too.

No.

We call it the 11th "Edition," but as a long-time comic-book fan, I grin at your usage.

Was everyone notified?

Do you have an organizational chart that you can upload, so as to spare me a few hours of constructing my own? More fundamentally: Robert's Rules considers an executive committee to be "a board within a board" of the board of directors (equivalently called a board of trustees &c). It looks as if your organization uses these terms differently. Also, your topic title asks about the executive board and the board of trustees, but the text of your post doesn't mention the executive board. So maybe I really do need to see the organizational chart, or a glossary. But, you ask: and: and: So where in your rules do you think he couldn't legally hold both positions; and what would be the conflict of interest; and why would he have to vacate the position of trustee? Is he somehow also the commander? Also, and perhaps even more fundamentally, maybe abusing my fundament, you say: ... so I ask, how have you established this? A bylaws provision? custom? precedent from a ruling derived from some trial by combat? (I grope for a connection with Robert's Rules in all this, which gives me some kind of sinking feeling....)

How would you argue no?

Well, I'm stumped.

Also, ""."

OF course not. We have a trial; and the accused gets notified, and all those other rights that Mr Honemann named (and maybe some more) ... Whyever would it be in absentia, unless the accused chooses to absent him- or herself? Harper, wherever do you get the idea that there will be no record??!? (This is kinda tangential ... what difference does it make whether there's a record or not, in determining whether people told the truth?) As long as the accused is a member, he can see the minutes. Harper, really, I don't think so; and if you think of it as confidentiality, rather than "secrecy," I think you'll see that it protects everybody equally, if not actually protecting the accused more than the society. As JJ said (with characteristic perth), "The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing."

As I think Mr Honemann is suggesting, the original main motion was not processed. If someone still likes it, he or she should move it anew.

Raise a point of order. Why wouldn't that work?